The Goofy Melancholy of "Inherent Vice"

Inherent Vice

Paul Thomas Anderson has never been a very mainstream filmmaker (not since Magnolia, anyway, and some would argue even that), but his last two films have been very polarizing. The Master was so complex (or disjointed or weird or nonsensical or etc.) that some critics theorized that Anderson himself was the titular "Master" and/or the film was about the acting process (click here for an article that will lead you down the rabbit hole of Master theories and criticism). Not to get too far into it, but that film allowed itself to be viewed in many different ways. I considered it an intentional comedy (the more you look at Anderson's filmography, the more you'll see that all of his films are at least partially comedic) and counted it among my favorite films of the year. Inherent Vice is equally polarizing, but for different reasons. Perhaps it's because it's so polarizing and different that it count it among my favorite films this year.

Inherent Vice, at first glance, looked like a return to Anderson's roots. A huge, talented cast, overt comedy, 1970s setting...could this be his return to the easy-to-watch-but-still-thematically-rich Boogie Nights-style? No, it is not. Not by a long shot. Inherent Vice isn't Anderson's strangest film (The Master holds that distinction), but it is arguably his least accessible (runner-up? The Master). Despite the goofy previews, Vice is a hopelessly dense film that encourages you not to understand it. I'm fine with that, but others will be frustrated. I'm okay with it being dense because this is an adaptation of the Thomas Pynchon novel of the same name. Pynchon is know for complex stories that don't necessarily make sense...or rather, stories that don't have crystal clear resolutions. Anderson is the perfect candidate to adapt such an author's work because both of them appear to going for the same thing: make something interesting that potentially says a lot about a number of issues without coming out and saying it, and have fun with it.

Anderson stated in Total Film in reference to The Big Sleep, an influence on the film, "I never remember plots in movies. I remember how they make me feel." It is obvious that Anderson feels this way about his own work these days. It's not that there isn't a story in Vice (if anything, there's too much); it's just that Anderson (and Pynchon) is not concerned with making sure you understand everything; they just want you to feel something. I don't take that to mean they want you to care about the characters all that much (though I do really like Vice's Doc Sportello and Bigfoot Bjornsen); I think it applies to the general feeling you get as you watch the film. When it comes to Vice, many of the film's fans will claim the movie made them feel high, and that was the whole point of it. I disagree. This film felt more strangely melancholy to me, a goofy melancholy, if such a feeling exists... I didn't take the confusion and randomness as something meant to make me feel high; I took it as intentional comedy laced with a sad realization that the world has changed. Set in 1970, Inherent Vice is more about the transition from the free-spirited '60s into the paranoid '70s than it is about the actual kidnapping/murder/drug cartel/dentist conglomerate/ex-old lady/stoner plot.

The transition of carefree to conspiracy lends itself to confusion, comedy, and sadness. The plot itself is confusing as Doc (a perfect Joaquin Phoenix) stumbles from one lead to the next adding more questions than answers. It's hard to keep up with, but Doc has a hard time to. Doc isn't only meant to be our conduit; he's also meant to be a representation of the audience we can laugh at. I wasn't trying to figure things out along with Doc, I was laughing at him grow more and more confused. He's also high throughout, so there are a few cheap laughs along those lines, as well. So the feeling is kind of goofy, but the score (by Anderson-regular Jonny Greenwood) reminds us at times that this is actually a pretty depressing end of an era. Certain musical touches reminded me of Apocalypse Now as Willard made his dark journey up the river. Greenwood created an end-of-it-all sound for some scenes that added another layer to the film.

Because of the score, soundtrack, and goofy melancholy of the film, it's tonally all over the place...kind of like the plot. This would certainly be a negative observation for most films, but most films aren't directed by Paul Thomas Anderson. Some would argue that Anderson gets a pass from fanboys (like me, and I do not consider "fanboy" to be a negative term) who turn what would traditionally be considered missteps into strokes of genius. I am certainly guilty of this, but I believe that Anderson knows what he is doing. For this film, however, a bit of that is out of his hands. This is his first sincere attempt at an adaptation (There Will Be Blood was only loosely based on an Upton Sinclair book), and he remained quite faithful to Pynchon's material. The messy, convoluted plot is actually evidence that this is a faithful adaptation. If anyone takes issue with that, then the critique should really be that Pynchon books are too dense for film. I'm almost inclined to agree. I read the book twice (once when it first came out and again before watching the film), and I still had a hard time following it. I can't imagine what it's like for someone completely new to the story. But I am one of the people who think the confusion is a good choice. By the end of the film, it was kind of amusing to share the confused looks Doc made with each twist and turn.

Anderson is one of the few directors out there that I will over-analyze and (possibly) credit too much. (Darren Aronofsky is the other director whose films I find myself automatically liking.) But I believe he has earned it. If a viewer doesn't share this feeling, then they could easily dismiss Inherent Vice as a misstep in Anderson's career. I've looked into these criticisms and from a certain point of view, they are all correct. This film is a mess, it makes no sense, visually it's not on the same obviously impressive level of his other work, etc. From my (fanboy) perspective, all of those "critiques" are intentional and serve the overall purpose of the film.

In my view, the overall purpose of the film was to create the feeling of transition from '60s to the '70s and all of the elements added up to that. It was a messy, confusing time in which people didn't know who could be trusted. The film exudes that feeling. It's about a shift from (slightly) innocent times to dark conspiratorial times. There's a quote at the beginning of the novel and at the end of the film from Paris during the 1968 protest: "Under the paving stones, the beach!" That sums up the theme of both novel and movie; the real world is hidden under progress. Doc is one of those people trying to find the beach, although his search is a bit drug-impaired.

Speaking of Doc, Joaquin Phoenix portrays him in mumbling glory. I didn't feel stoned while watching this, but Phoenix certainly looked it. It's a hilarious and likable performance that I think will only get better with repeated viewings. The film and novel have been compared to The Big Lebowski, and I think the comparison is most apt when looking at Doc and The Dude. Phoenix has mastered the use of facial expressions in this role. It's not that he's good at looking stoned/confused (though he is great at that), it's his reaction to everything. His performance is really more Johnny Depp as Hunter S. Thompson than it is Jeff Bridges as The Dude. It's still very much his own, original performance, however. But there are certainly shades of other famous stoners in there. Phoenix does his best work opposite Josh Brolin as Doc's friend/adversary Bigfoot Bjornsen. Their scenes together are by far the film's most comedic moments. Brolin is being grossly ignored this awards season.

The focus on Doc's expression actually undermines the film's look, though. The majority of the film is shot in close-ups on characters' faces. When seen on the big screen, it's almost strange how close up many of the shots are. This is frustrating because Anderson is so good at composing visuals. There are still moments in this film, but you have to really be looking for them: The Last Supper (Pizza) shot at a house party (which is actually directly taken from the book), the scene at the docks that starts in close up and almost unnoticeably pulls back into a long shot, the scene with Penny on the bench that starts as a long shot and unnoticeably pushes into a close up, and the very effective long take near the end of the film (you'll know what I mean when you see it). Anderson is a master at work, but I prefer his more cinematic moments a la There Will Be Blood. Though I must say, this visual style works for this film.

I could go on, but this is far too wordy a review as it is. There is so much more to discuss, though. I barely mentioned the supporting cast (all of which were great). There are the hallucinations that Doc has leading some to question the majority of the movie. There's the rumored Pynchon cameo that no one will confirm (some think he's the one walking back and forth behind Owen Wilson and Phoenix in the house party scene). I could go on, but I won't. To close, Inherent Vice is not accessible, but if you fully try to access it, it is an immensely rewarding experience. This is not to say that those who dismiss it or dislike it "don't get it" (at this point, that phrase should be banned from film discussion); it just means that some people will see interesting elements where others see faults. It's all about the viewer's perception. It just helps if that view is an Anderson fanboy.

Inherent Vice receives a:

That's Anderson wearing the hood...

Random Thoughts (SPOILERS)

Okay, I need to add more. First off, in defense of being a Paul Thomas Anderson fanboy. The guy doesn't make the same movie twice, I think everyone can agree. I find myself wanting another There Will Be Blood, but I really don't. That would be a waste of Anderson's time. So as long as he keeps doing something new and unique each time, I'm going to keep focusing too deeply on his movies. And I'm also going to like them for their very existence because too few directors are willing to try something new every time out.

Now for the hallucinations. Early in the movie, Doc sees Bigfoot in a commercial, and then Bigfoot directly addresses him. This is the only time it is crystal clear that Doc is hallucinating, but it opens the entire movie to that possibility. I'm always one to argue that the majority of a film is actually happening as we see it, and I am inclined to stick with that position for this film. Others have been theorizing that more outlandish moments, like Bigfoot showing up to eat a whole tray of weed, are hallucinations as well. I can see the argument for this, and it's interesting to watch the film with that possibility in mind, but I like it more believing that most of it is real. Bigfoot showing up to eat a tray of weed is a more powerful scene when it actually happens because it shows that Bigfoot is very troubled, and Doc truly cares about him (he does shed that tear while watching him eat). It's seems less powerful if it turns out Doc is just seeing things or, worse, Bigfoot is a Tyler Durden-type creation of Doc's mind (that theory is out there, check IMDb). 

What I truly love about Anderson's movies are that they do create a feeling. It's hard to define, but as I watched the film, I wasn't sure that I liked it all that much. But as I thought about it, certain elements stuck with me (the music gets me every time). I couldn't explain why I liked or disliked it, but I wanted to see it again for that feeling. Once I watched it again, I did decide that I liked it, but I still can't accurately describe the feeling it give me. I suppose this is why I'm always up for re-watching an Anderson movie. There are entire articles about whether a movie should have to be viewed more than once. I'm not saying anyone has to watch this film more than once. I just think Anderson's movies get better with each viewing. I'm not sure that's something someone can do intentionally, but it's definitely been the case with the majority of his films. Okay, I'm done now. I'm going to go watch The Master on a loop until Inherent Vice comes out on video. 

Top Ten (and then some) of 2012

I am going to give the same warning for this top ten list that I did last year: these are my top ten (and then some) “favorite” films of the year.  I am in position to claim one film is technically “better” than any other film.  Sure, I might be more likely than most to comment on filming techniques, score, acting, etc., but at the end of the day, or year, I still simply pick which movies I enjoyed the most.  Was Anna Karenina more impressive from a filmmaking standpoint than Lincoln?  Yes, absolutely.  But while I enjoyed Anna Karenina, it didn’t contain subject matter that I found particularly interesting nor did it have any performances that match up with Lincoln.  The point is that these top ten lists that flood the internet and magazines around this time of the year are all subjective.  It’s all personal taste.  That said, I have kind of a boring list, as my top three films are on nearly all of the top ten lists.  I’m not one to lie just to be different, though, so I stuck with the ten films I enjoyed the most this year.  I found 2012 to be a great year for movies, which is why I also added a few comments for five more films, and have a lengthy honorable mention list.  So here it is.  Feel free to completely disagree with me.  All I ask is that you keep an open mind, especially about the movies on the list that you haven’t seen.  It’s always okay to hate a movie, but only if you’ve seen it.

Also, I did miss out on a handful of films that some people have been praising, such as Holy Motors, End of Watch, Rust and Bone, Alps, and Compliance.  

1. Lincoln
 


I honestly did not expect this to end up as my number one film of the year.  I knew Day-Lewis would give a great performance, but I was skeptical of Spielberg.  I was afraid this was going to be a safe, plain patriotic film.  I wasn’t entirely wrong, but I was floored by how effective, and entertaining, the film was.  Many have complained of the film being boring, and I understand that, with all of the politics and long conversations, but I love that stuff.  While some were falling asleep, I was paying close attention.  The entire film works for me.  But it was Daniel Day-Lewis’s performance that sealed the deal for me. 

 

2. Django Unchained



An extremely close second because of the entertainment value in Quentin Tarantino’s edgy film.  Some are offended by the very premise of the film, but what can I say?  It’s kind of hard to offend me.  I enjoy movies and that is what this is: a very enjoyable movie.

 

3. Zero Dark Thirty



An important but riveting film.  It’s catching a lot of flak concerning torture and all that, but if you can get past that, this lengthy film expertly recreates the nuts and bolts of the manhunt that brought Osama bin Laden to justice.  More importantly, though, the film leaves the viewer with some questions about the war on terror and how it’s being waged.

 

4. The Master

 

Paul Thomas Anderson is a filmmaker I will always find interesting, and that is the basis for this pick.  Some will watch this and absolutely hate it, and I understand that.  It’s a strange film.  I started to doubt my enjoyment of the film weeks after my initial viewing, but watching it again recently, I realized once again that I love this movie.  It’s endlessly fascinating to me.

 

5. Prometheus

 

This is one of my controversial picks and the one that will have some people completely dismiss me.  I don’t know why everyone on the internet chose this film to nitpick incessantly.  I suppose it didn’t live up to their expectations, whatever those were.  I enjoyed the film very much, though.  It’s a science-fiction film with a brain.  Yes, with a brain.  Most people criticize the film because of the “stupid” things the characters do, but that says nothing about the themes of the film.  I don’t know, maybe I’m just easily pleased, but I thought director Ridley Scott’s return to sci-fi was entertaining and thought-provoking.  Also, this is a sci-fi film that relied surprisingly heavily on practical effects.  In today’s movie world, that is something that should be appreciated.

 

6. The Dark Knight Rises

 

Another film people are now ripping to shreds because of plot holes online.  (Because the first two films of the trilogy were documentaries, right?)  I thought this was a pleasing and fitting conclusion to my favorite superhero series of all time.  I know the battle was between this and The Avengers, but I liked both.  I just enjoyed this one more.  And as with Prometheus, the amount of practical stunt work and visual effects deserves much more credit than it has received thus far.

 

7. Cloud Atlas

 

This film could have easily been a complete mess (and some would argue that it is), but somehow the filmmakers took a complex book and compiled an amazing film experience out of it.  It gets bonus points from for the sheer ambition of it, but more than that, the film grabbed me and made me care about what was happening. 

 

8. Wanderlust

 

This pick might leave people simply asking, “What is Wanderlust?”  Unfortunately, this hilarious comedy failed to find much success at the box office or on home video.  I think this movie is worthy of cult status and hopefully time will rectify that.  Maybe not, though.  It is a truly absurd film, and is certainly not for everyone.  But in a year filled with great comedies, I found this one to rise above the rest.  It features that rare self-aware comedy that never has to sink to the level of actors winking at the camera.  If you like comedies off the beaten path, check this out.

 

9. Looper

 

I’m a sucker for sci-fi and even though the paradoxes of time travel films tend to bother me, this film does it right.  Joseph Gordon-Levitt is terrific and his Bruce Willis impression is worth watching alone.  Thankfully, writer-director Rian Johnson makes this stylish, interesting film much more than a lengthy Willis impression.

 

10. Lawless

 

This is a film that I feel has been unfairly forgotten by year-end lists and awards.  This story of bootlegging in Virginia is an interesting period piece that features a great cast.  Definitely one of the most crowd-pleasing films on my list (I have yet to talk to someone who did not like it).  I really just think this film needs to find a larger audience because it is a very fun film.

 

Five close picks

 

The Cabin in the Woods – Any horror movie fan should check this horror-comedy out.  Don’t expect an actual horror movie, though.

 

Moonrise Kingdom – Wes Anderson being Wes Anderson.  At this point you either like it or you don’t.

 

The Avengers – A truly entertaining, fun time.  I just like Batman more.

 

Argo – Terrifically tense film that is getting plenty of love for Affleck’s directing and rightfully so.

 

Skyfall – An extremely satisfying Bond film that might even please old-school fans…might.

 

Honorable Mention

Flight, The Grey, 21 Jump Street, Ted, Anna Karenina, Room 237, and Silver Linings Playbook

"The Master"

Written and directed by Paul Thomas Anderson, starring Joaquin Phoenix, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Amy Adams, Laura Dern, and Rami Malek - Rated R

"If you figure out a way to live without a master, any master, be sure to let the rest of us know."

 

 

 

Writer/director Paul Thomas Anderson has become one of my favorite filmmakers over the years.  Since I first watched Boogie Nights, I was hooked (it would be years before I watched his first feature, Hard Eight).  After Magnolia, I thought I had Anderson’s neo-Altman style figured out.  Then came Punch Drunk Love, which, admittedly, caught me off guard.  After a few viewings, I came to enjoy the film and accept Anderson’s true style.  His focus went from a collection of messed up characters to a singular view of one troubled man.  This style was perfected in There Will Be Blood, a movie that I consider to be among the best of all time.  Obviously, my expectations were catastrophic when I went in to see The Master.

I suppose the key question would be, “Is this better than There Will Be Blood?"  Some might think so, but I do not.  Blood left you with a lot to think about, but it was also extremely entertaining and absolutely engrossing…and it has Daniel Day-Lewis.  The Master has its moments, but as entertainment, it leaves a bit to be desired.  And it is certainly a more challenging film.  This is the type of movie that will leave nearly everyone with their own personal interpretation of the film.  I actually love movies like that, but when you stack that up against There Will Be Blood, I have to go with the latter. 

The Master is extremely intriguing, though.  I found myself very involved in the film.  It’s a difficult film to figure out, but that’s the fun part of it.  The weirdness and absurdity of it all make it worth watching.  From the strange concoctions the main character makes to the childish arguments between the two leads, I found myself disgusted and perplexed, but I also found myself laughing.  This is intentional laughter, mind you.  Joaquin Phoenix told Time that he sees the film as a comedy.  I agree to a point.  I would like to hear someone argue that the jail cell scene was not meant to elicit a few laughs, because that scene cracked me up.  So there is entertainment, it’s just a bit unexpected. 

The themes of the film lead to a bit more intellectual satisfaction.  Since the film is loosely based on Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard, there’s a lot to go into down that road (though I think that’s the easy way out).  The bigger questions are about who or what exactly the titular master is.  Is it religion in general, conscience, women, sexuality, addiction, insanity?  The list could go on.  I don’t want to posit theories, necessarily, because I like the idea that the film could be about any of these things and then some.  Some would call that a kitchen sink approach, but it made the film infinitely fascinating to me. 

The other theory floating around out there is that Anderson is the master, and he is just playing a trick on all of us by throwing us a confusing movie with no point.  And supposedly he’s laughing at all of us internet movie nerds as we try to decipher the indecipherable.  There’s nothing wrong with that scenario, really.  In fact, I quite like the idea of Anderson laughing maniacally as he scans the IMDb message boards.  I just don’t buy it.  To each his own and all, but I think there’s a point to this movie.  Also, how could Anderson allow Joaquin Phoenix to give the performance of his career for nothing?  Not to mention Philip Seymour Hoffman’s work, or Amy Adams’s. 

The acting is an aspect of the movie that most can agree on, even if they hate the film.  Phoenix, coming off his strange (and hilarious) performance art piece I’m Still Here, is absolutely disturbing, in the best possible definition of the word, as WWII vet Freddie Quell.  It’s an award-worthy performance, and not just because he gets to hit stuff and yell a lot.  Everything, from his twisted facial expressions to his strange posture, emits a troubled soul.  It is honestly one of those performances in which you forget that you’re watching an actor; I can’t think of higher praise than that. 

Hoffman, as Lancaster Dodd, does a great job as always, of course.  He is remarkably believable as the leader of this cult/religion/movement.  It’s also great to see Hoffman team up with Anderson again after a one film hiatus.  He is outshined a bit by Phoenix, but watching these two work together is great.  Their more heated interactions were easily my favorite moments from the film. 

The supporting players do fine work, as well, most notably Amy Adams.  She is the quiet undercurrent of the film, and she deserves a lot of focus, both as a character and an actress.  I also enjoyed Rami Malek’s nervous performance and Jessie Plemons as Hoffman’s son (can you say, “perfect casting”?) made for some interesting scenes, not to mention he has the line that fuels the “Anderson is just messing with us” theory: “He’s just making it all up as he goes along.” 

The other aspect of the film that most can agree on is the fact that it is beautiful.  While this film doesn’t lend itself to grand visuals as often as Blood does, there are still some amazing shots.  In fact, the film is meant to be projected in 70MM, although I didn’t have the chance to see it in that format (not a lot of art house screenings in southern Indiana).  The point is this is certainly a visual film.  I found the images of Phoenix as a sailor at the beginning of the film to contain the most lasting imagery, but the camerawork is effective throughout. 

Another welcome element is the music of Johnny Greenwood for the score.  The work here is not as ambitious as his previous work on Blood, but it is just as effective.  When there’s a tense scene going on, Greenwood’s score definitely amps it up nearly to the point of physical discomfort.  That is a good thing, by the way. 

All of these things come together to make a very effective Paul Thomas Anderson film.  I didn’t “like” it more than There Will Be Blood, but I found myself thinking about The Master and the themes therein much more than I did after watching Blood.  When I walked out of the theater after seeing Blood, I was thinking mainly about how awesome I thought it was.  When I walked out after this film, I found myself contemplating every aspect of it.  Was I as entertained?  No.  But the film has really stuck with me.  I won’t say that this is a film that must be watched multiple times to “get it,” but I cannot wait to watch it again so I can see which theories match up.  I might even come away with something new entirely the next time I watch it.  If that’s Paul Thomas Anderson just messing with me, I’ll take it. 

Random Thoughts (SPOILERS)

I left with the impression that sexuality is the true master of the characters.  There's the hinted at homosexual attraction between Dodd and Quell, mainly on the part of Dodd, who has to be *ahem* released of his desires by his wife at one point.  That leads to the power Dodd's wife, Peggy, holds over nearly everyone.  And what about that scene in which Quell sees her eyes turn colors?  Finally, what led me to this conclusion was the bookend images of Quell with the sand lady.  Despite his journey, he is still a slave to his sexual desires.  But that's just me.

How messed up are all of those drinks he makes?  Someone in my audience actually blurted out, "Oh no!" after he took a drink of one of them. 

That childish back and forth in the jail cell is fantastic.  It was so great to see Lancaster Dodd, this man of answers, be reduced to yelling, "No one likes you but me!"